Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting to change the name of this page

SUPPORT

Support, because the new title would more accurately reflect what the page is. Particularly useful for newbies. Tony 08:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The same reasons Tony mentioned. It more accurately reflects what the page is. As it stands, the title doesn't mesh with the content all that well. It, at first, sounds like something you'd see in the FAQ, but then it's suddenly giving extensive details on what an FA should consist of. As it stands, instead of just answering "What is a featured article?" as the title would suggest, it's the page where featured article criteria are listed. It only makes sense to make this more accurate, especially given all the recent changes made to the page so as to help it more effectively serve its purpose. By the way, any links that would need to be repaired as a result of the move, I would take responsibility for. Ryu Kaze 14:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

NEUTRAL

In light of what Titoxd and Raul have pointed out would follow if the change were made (the fact that the Wikipedia shortcut WP:FAC would become ambiguous), it is probably best that the matter be left as it is. While it was a good idea to give the article a more accurate name while making all the other changes, given that doing this would introduce an actual problem (whereas the current issue is more one of what seems most sensible in assigning page names), it's best to just defer to what's most simple. I'll withdraw my support and simply remain neutral. While I'd like to see the article title changed to something more to the point, I don't think it's for the best to impose a real problem that would need to be addressed since the page's name isn't currently a matter of imposition of some kind. Ryu Kaze 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSE

I don't really see how this would harm anything, but neither how it would benefit anybody. The redirect already solves that issue, and the page move would cause some confusion about WP:FAC - is it Featured Article Criteria or Featured Article Candidates? Also, it would require to update links all over the place, to bypass the redirect. Tito xd^(?!?) 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This poll is silly and should never have been started. Titoxd hit the nail on the head - this is a very bad idea because FAC will suddenly be ambigious. Raul654 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul, rather than weighing in and calling other people's ideas "silly", a substantive argument is required at the right time and not after the event. That would have included pointing out the problem with the abbreviated link and redirects before the sign was posted at the top of this page. The sign contains the phrase "Discussion and voting to support or oppose the move should appear somewhere on this talk page"; I acted accordingly. Please be aware of WP's rules on civility. And while on this topic, I find your announcements in edit comments that you're the FA Director quite unnecessary. It's supposed to be about building consensus among equals. Tony 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it better to call a poll "silly" than to call it "evil"? :-/ Personally, I find the name of this page informative enough; fussing over it now amounts to agonizing over a non-problem. I ~~second~~ third the concerns about bypassing redirects and making FAC pointlessly ambiguous. If I were truly desperate to make this page's name parallel that of FAC and FAR, I might go with "Featured Article Expectations" or something like that ("Requirements" is no good, because of the initial). I still can't imagine the name change solving any problems. Anville 05:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Who posted the misleading sign at the top, and who didn't explain the problems in the first place? And in answer to you, Anville, I find "silly" offensive, no matter what you choose to compare it against. Tony 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the sign was my fault. The instructions on Wikipedia:Requested moves says to put it up there when you list a page for a move. I wasn't aware that there was anyone actually opposed to the move on a basis such as these, nor did I realize at the time that such a problem would follow. Based on the last time it was brought up, it just seemed like no one thought it was a pressing matter, but no one actually seemed to oppose the concept for what it was. Then, after no one opposed in the discussion above, I assumed it was all clear, so I went ahead with listing it for a move and placing the sign. I guess apologies to everybody if I jumped the gun, but I thought that was where the consensus mindset had gone. Ryu Kaze 12:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism sections

Do the featured article criteria include any guidelines about whether to include separate criticism sections? I see the issue raised often. My own view is that, wherever possible, criticism should be woven into the narrative. I know that Jimbo expressed a preference for this, saying "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Even so, editors seem to like criticism sections because they're easy to write and easy to keep adding to, which indeed is part of the problem. Do regular FA reviewers have a view on this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect, but with no evidence to back me up, that articles that acquire "Criticism" sections tend to be controversial articles, and that we don't see very many controversial articles here because they tend to fail the stability requirement. Incidentally, I wonder how many articles have a section labelled "Praise"... Jkelly 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It's precisely the controversial ones where it presents a difficulty, because every new editor adds whatever latest criticism he's read in his local newspaper, and suddenly the article has a list of claims as long as your arm, with no context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Former FA Hugo Chávez had/has a criticism fork because the majority of the regular editors there will not cut the size, employ Summary Style, and allow criticism to be woven into the narrative, briefly summarizing and merging the two articles. It attained FA with unrecognized POV last December, and then lost it within about six months due to POV and instability, but still has a criticism fork, with the main article being mostly "praise" based on non-reliable sources funded by pro-Chavez groups. As a regular FA reviewer, I would not vote to FA such an article. As expressed in your quote from Jimbo, articles should be balanced, and employ Summary Style across the board, not relegating criticism to a separate article or section. The most recent example I recall here that didn't have any criticism when it came up on FAC was Hilary Putnam; because reviewers asked that criticism be included, it was written as a separate section, but looking at that content with hindsight, it appears that the criticism could have been woven into the narrative in each appropriate section. Sandy 20:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, that's very helpful. Another editor pointed out Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an example of an FA with a separate criticism section. I think the criticism there probably could have been incorporated, though it can be harder than it looks to keep the narrative flowing and weave the criticism into it, so this isn't intended as a criticism of anyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is hard, unless editors are really committed to working together to present balance. I peeked at Encyclopedia Britannica, and found that in the case of Chavez, they did it just fine ... recognized the controversy and criticism, since it is a huge part of that particular personna, giving the criticism due weight. Another issue that occurs here on Wiki is that some editors insist that any criticism say exactly what the source says (BLP), with very little room for paraphrasing and summarizing concepts from several sources, making it hard to succintly summarize a simple idea, supported by several sources, into one sentence and resulting in a hodgepodge footnote war. Sandy 22:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a hodgepodge footnote war and a section that's just a list of quotes. I find that's one area lots of editors have difficulty with — paraphrasing accurately or recognizing when someone else has. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I am a regular FA reviewer (anymore) but... I think science articles are interesting to look at wrt criticism sections. The consensus view on featured science articles such as Evolution, Global Warming and Big Bang (though there is an edit war at the last about exactly this issue) is that there shouldn't be a crit section nor much by the way of interwoven criticism if there is strong consensus in the scientific community about the issue covered by the article. Evolution, for example, doesn't have a crit section but has a section on Social and religious controversies (which says explicitly the scientific consensus is in favour of evolution but deals with the philosophical, religious etc. perceptions of evolution). It then also links to Creation-evolution controversy and Evidence for evolution, which deals with the issues in detail. Similarly, Global Warming has an "Alternative theories" sub-section but, again, it says explicitly the scientific community strongly favour the anthropocentric explanation. And, I agree completely with the comments above about troll management - I am more or less a 'regular' at Evolution and have had to deal with my share of pov ips, but I can hardly imagine the problems we'd have if there were a crit section people could just add to. Mikker ^(...) 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea that crit sections are POV magnets (particularly when in list form, as it's just so easy to throw something else on the pile). We've seen, with the ongoing death of trivia sections (at least on our better articles), that types of sections can be denigrated to the point that having them is a block at FAC. Perhaps we need something like Wikipedia:Trivia (which is actually rather rambling) for crit sections.

However, from WP:NPOV: "a topic...can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization--for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section". This appears to be actually advocating a separate section. Note this is in the "Fairness of tone" section on NPOV, which I for one would like to see scrapped or reworked. Marskell 06:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A separate criticism can be used to structure an article to reflect bias/POV. If a controversial subject receives massive criticism from multiple sectors and reliable sources, relegating any/all critical content to a small, short section at the bottom of the article, or a separate article, does not allow for due weight and does not reflect the fact that they are more than "opinions of opponents", rather content from most reliable sources across a broad spectrum that should be woven into context. Due weight should be applied and criticism should be interwoven, not relegated as an after-thought or a very small part of a large "praise" article. Systemic bias on Wiki doesn't always allow for balance: criticism with due weight can't be interwoven when majority editors won't allow it, in spite of a preponderance of reliable sources. Perhaps the confusion over where/how to place criticism comes in because on some *uncontroversial* topics (think literature, film), criticism of the subject matter is often a separate section? At least that was how I read the (now inactive) article I cited below for SV. Sandy 08:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

When I first started editing, there was something in one of the policy pages or guidelines about not having criticism sections, but I can't remember where. That sentence certainly appears to recommend them, though I think all they really mean is don't write things like: "X said that Bush was unpopular, but X is a newspaper with a small circulation ..." i.e. don't outline criticism only to pounce on it immediately. When I have time, I'll check through a few policy histories to see if I can find the previous advice, and perhaps we could try to add it to NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, the page is now "inactive" Wikipedia:Criticism. Sandy 08:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How sad that I edited it as recently as August 10 but have virtually no memory of it. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL - join the club (looking for my sticky notes :-) Sandy 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of criticism sections for the same reasons pointed out by Marskell and Mikker Raul654 07:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be worth reviving the page Sandy found. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be, but we do not need another long proposed policy essay. Let's come up with a few specific points that address trying not to use it, while still allowing for it if appropriate. As Sandy suggests, it is appropriate to have a section called "criticism" on a literature page, as "literary criticism" is an understood designation (that differs greatly from a rant about GWB's policies, say). Marskell 10:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do that where, on the Criticism page, or here? Sandy 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There, methinks. I'll add it to my watchlist. (Funny, you found it too: I searched Wikipedia:Criticisms and Wikipedia:Criticisms sections but not Wikipedia:Criticism). Marskell 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a head start with the failing memory - I had it bookmarked: I've been doing the battle of trying to get rid of the POV Criticism fork for literally months, but since I'm outnumbered, POV prevails, the fork remains. Even if we write tighter guidelines, we can't force people to follow those that are not policy (in the case of the articles I work on, guidelines will be ignored by majority rule anyway, just as WP:RS is ignored [1]), but I'm game to help. Sandy 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Today's feture article the history of erotic depictions I felt was too "touchy" a topic for the main page, some people comming here for honest research may not want to see such subject material on the front page, it also gives the site a bad name in the oponion of others.68.37.229.165 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) John68.37.229.165 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality of pages being linked to

Didn't it used to be the case that articles that a FA linked to were supposed to be of some reasonable quality? Obviously not all links need to be checked, but the very first link from today's FA, Preemption (computing), has three big, ugly tags at the top, which just make it look messy. Can't things like this be sorted out before five thousand people click on the article (as they do for anything reachable from the front page)? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Didn't it used to be the case that articles that a FA linked to were supposed to be of some reasonable quality?" - No, this has never been the case, either for featured articles as a whole or the ones that go on the main page. Raul654 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Filmographies

Over at WP:WPBIO we were thinking of writing up guidelines on how to present filmographies for articles on people that would have this kind of info. What is the consensus here on best practices for that? Should they be in a table or in prose form, if in table, from earliest to latest?, etc. What do people here look for on a filmography when reviewing articles on actors, etc.? I'd like to have a guideline that will help the editor be able to have at least that part conform to FA criteria... Thanks! --plange 01:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not really and issue for the FAC; format doesn't matter as long as an article makes sense - unless there are some wikiproject guidelines an article should consider (even then, each article has its quirks). But my personal preference is to have important films discussed chronologically in the text and to have a table of some kind at the end that lists all the films and any awards and nominations.--Peta 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity in guideline 3 (images)

Something has to be done about guideline #3; I have read it and re-read it and I find it to be ambiguous. The criterion as now written reads:

It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.

Now, it is clear that the need for images is different depending on the subject. For example, Psychosis is not an easy subject to illustrate with images, and so the fact that the article does not include them should obviously not be a reason to remove its FA status (or to oppose its re-nomination should its status be revoked for other reasons). On the other hand, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a subject that does warrant illustration by images, as the article would not be able to present the topic completely without them. As I see it, then, there are two contradictory ways that criterion #3 can be interpreted:

No featured article, no matter what the subject, requires images in the article. If this is the case, the criterion should be reworded to say "Any images in the article must be used appropriately, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."
The article must have images if including them is appropriate, but if they are not appropriate, it does not require them. This means deciding on a case-by-case basis whether images are needed to illustrate the subject. If this is the correct interpretation, the criterios should be reworded to "It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." Andrew Levine 17:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel its the latter. It used to be that way sometime back when someone changed it. I feel we should revert back to the original one as the current one is confusing. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, then there can be discussion about whether images are appropriate for the topic instead of an innacurate inference that articles don't need images, which the current wording could make it seem. - Taxman ^Talk 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

'Verifiability' vs 'Verified'

I was reading up on the German Wikipedia article tagging system (aka 'stable versions', see info here) and noticed that they are talking about having a 'non-vandalized' tag and a 'higher tier tag' in which, unless I'm just translating it wrong, all of the references have been verified. It occurs to me that this latter is a significant difference between Wikipedia (English anyway) and traditional encyclopedias like Brittanica. Our 'featured articles' are generally considered 'good enough for publication', but our standard is that there are references listed which a reader could verify... as opposed to references listed which we have verified. Is this something we should consider transitioning to as a requirement for featured articles? If/when this tagging system is implemented here are we going to have 'featured articles' which don't qualify for any 'closely examined versions' (my translation of 'geprüfte versionen') because the references have never actually been checked by some 'qualified reviewer'? That'd probably be almost all of them currently... as there isn't even currently a way to specify that such a review has been done. As envisioned/described on the German Wikipedia this 'closely examined' status could be applied to a stub with poor grammar so long as all the information in the article were verified against the listed references... so 'featured' and 'closely examined' could be entirely separate statuses, but I'd think we would want our 'featured' articles to conform to the highest standards in every regard. It might even make sense to have a 'featured version' tag like those above which indicated a version that conformed to all standards. --CBD 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that would be the next level, actually verified citations, and really the only thing left that I can think of to raise the FA criteria. There is a project called m:Wikicite with essentially working code as I understand it to help facilitate that process. As far as I can tell, the only reason it's not getting instituted is not enough awareness. While the benefits of verified citations are clear for information quality purposes, I'm not sure it makes sense to put that in the criteria now. We only have just over 1000 articles out of 1.4 million that meet the FA criteria now, I'm not sure there would be an immediate benefit to instituting a criteria that only a handful could meet in a short period of time. - Taxman ^Talk 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we probably aren't ready for this now, but the featured article requirements have continually become stricter over time (causing some articles to lose their status without actually having 'deteriorated' at all) and I think it makes sense to allow that to continue 'naturally'. As you note in the next section, we have standards now that some of the featured articles don't meet and have had such for a long time. For a long time just having a general references section was considered enough, but in the past year or so it has transitioned to requiring dozens of specific references... eventually that may reach the point of needing a specific reference for every fact stated. You're saying that we need to be stricter about making sure those references are reliable. Yet none of that transition was due to change in the standards themselves... it was in their all along, but not as strictly enforced/interpreted. Thus, I'd be inclined to add 'references have been verified' to the standards if (when according to Jimbo) the article tagging system goes live (or 'Wikicite' takes off)... with the understanding that it would be a 'suggestion' at first which we will become more strict about as time goes by. --CBD 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WT:FAC#Articles with no reliable sources

I started a discussion there at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates that people may be interested in. Please keep discussion in one place, this is only for notification, as the discussion involves how the criteria are applied. - Taxman ^Talk 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We need a commonsense rule on subject matter

Right now, there is absolutely no restriction on Featured Article subject matter. The appearance of either 1987 (which contains an obscenity in its title) or Jimmy Wales on the Main Page would be a public relations disaster. Would anyone support a pornographic photo for Featured Picture? Would anyone support an article on the F-word or the N-word for Featured Article?? I wouldn't think so.

I would suggest that featured articles should not "contain obscenities" or "reflect favorably on Wiki" or "show proper decorum" on Wikipedia. I am open to suggestions. Madman 19:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length, so I'll simply summarize the conclusions we have come to. First, you need to make a distinction between the featured articles as a whole and the ones that appear on the main page. Any AFD-survivable article can become a featured article, but not necessarily any featured article can go on the main page. There are a very few featured articles that I personally have reservations about putting on the main page, and so those are the ones that are not going to appear anytime soon. Raul654 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not obvious to me that any given FA article could never appear on the Main Page. For example, the page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests is not linked from any Feature Article page (at least none that I can find). Moreover, when I look over the articles listed there, not one is Opposed by anyone.

I think that some editors are so caught up in their own works and their own environment that it's difficult for them to see how Wikipedia is perceived by the general public. Madman 01:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Go complain to Jimbo Wales if you think that results in a bad perception of Wikipedia amongst the general public. I doubt he'd agree with you since as an adult he doesn't want to be insulted by nanny-state censorship. --kingboyk 12:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the title you're looking for is 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) :) "Fuck the Millennium" is already a Featured Article, and a very worthy one if I say so myself.

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. We may write about any topic here, and use profane language if it's entirely necessary. In this case it's necessary. I have no objections to "Fuck the Millennium" being denied a place on the front page - although I know from that FAC at least one editor considered it front page material - but to deny an FA star to a brilliant article because it justifiably includes a swear word is a fallacy. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors implies that whilst we may not all be adults we're treated like adults.

As I tried to point out on the 1987 FAC, the nomination is for an FA star, editorial approval, not for front page placement. These are - rightly - entirely seperate processes. 1987 already has a GA badge and I'm not sure it's placement on WP:GOOD has corrupted anybody :)

I agree with you that Jimmy Wales should not be on the front page, though. --kingboyk 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I rather hope that our featured articles do "reflect favorably on Wiki".

As for "contain obscenities" or "show proper decorum", would you care to compile a list of "obscenities" and a guide to "proper decorum" with consensus support. Would you objecy to the surprisingly good phallus, or Pederasty in ancient Greece, or Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay A Modest Proposal (an essay encouraging the eating of Irish children to avoid famine) or Thomas Carlyle's 1849 essay, An Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question (his contrversial essay arguing for the reintroduction of slavery in the West Indies, sadly redlinked)? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think our ability to come up with a rule that (a) covers all the required cases, (b) is acceptable to all and (c) is of reasonable length/complexity is extremely limited. I think Raul's (implicit) approach of 'I know it when I see it' is better in this case. But, erm, to ALoan: let me just point out Swift's essay is satire, he doesn't really encourage the eating of children. Just being pedantic :).... Mikker ^(...) 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For the front page, maybe so: but Madman was objecting to an FAC because the article contains the F-word! Front page placement is an entirely different matter. Maybe the front page is censored; FAC isn't and should never be. --kingboyk 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... The way I read it, Madmad is saying FAs that are controversial shouldn't be on the main page, which, of course, I agree with for pragmatic reasons (even if I think, in an ideal world people would just grow up & not be insulted by swear words or controversy). In any case, I agree with you - as long as an article would survive afd, it should be allowed to be a FAC if it meets the criteria. Mikker ^(...) 21:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that might be what he's saying now, but if so he doesn't believe me that having an FA star and being on the front page are not one and the same thing :) Where this came from - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) --kingboyk 22:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on Quotes

I have a question/doubt: in FAs, is it WP:NPOV to have a third-party quotation about the subject? For example, Albert Einstein saying of Mahatma Gandhi: "Generations will..." Shouldn't all quotes (especially in FAs) be left to Wikiquote? Is placing Einstein's quote in the biography of Gandhi somewhat of POV-pushing? Rama's arrow 14:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is, in a sense, a derivative of the "what constitutes trivia?" question, as much as a POV issue. Is it trivial to include a quote of that sort (poignant as the quote may be)? IMO, there's no bar to third-party quotes, and the question would be whether it's appropriate to the section in question. If it's tacked on to a list (or a list in prose form, which you'll find on articles) it may serve no real function other than to prove how "great" the subject was. In the context of, say, Gandhi's "Influences on the sciences" it would make sense. Or, in a paragraph describing "Death and memorial," you might say "amongst various praise, Einstein observed that 'generations will...'"

Sorry if this a non-answer, but I'd just try to view it commonsensically in the context under consideration. I don't think quotes of this sort should be opposed as a hard rule. Marskell 21:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

I've put forward a proposal for a new content policy, currently called Wikipedia:Attribution, with a view to merging and replacing Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Another aim is to get rid of Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a guideline, and reduce it to a page of advice about how to find good sources called Wikipedia:How to find reliable sources. Similarly, WP:CITE would become Wikipedia:How to cite sources, a page about how to format citations with no extraneous advice.

The reason for the proposal is that some good editors were finding V and NOR confusing, too restrictive in some areas, and bloated; and RS had become a bit of a mess. As V and NOR are closely linked, it makes sense to have them on one page.

The primary aim of the proposal is to produce a well-written, streamlined policy that picks up the most important points of V and NOR but ditches anything we don't need. The second aim is to try to find a way to accommodate editors who work on popular culture articles, where good secondary sources are hard to find. These editors complain that NOR and V are too restrictive (with their insistence on reliable, secondary sources; not using Usenet and bulletin boards; not allowing much self-published material etc). It would be good to find a way to accommodate the sourcing concerns of those editors without opening the floodgates to poorly sourced material. It's going to be tricky to balance those two needs, and it will depend on some clear and tight writing.

It would be great if the FA reviewers could get involved in helping to draft the proposal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please check this out and comment. Particularly the pop culture clause, since this is a big change to existing policy and needs to be made the best it can be (or killed if necessary). — BrianSmithson 09:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Factually accurate

How many and how wide a variety of sources are required by "factually accurate"? Hyacinth 05:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

However many it takes to convince reviewers that the article is comprehensive, neutral, and factually accurate: depends on the quality of the sources used. Sandy 13:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And the topic of the article! ;-) (As a general rule, the more controversial a topic, the greater the variety of sources needed to convince reviewers of neutrality and comprehensiveness.) Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not much more specific than the project page. Is one reference ever enough? Is one high quality source equal to two poor quality sources? If sources indicate a topic is controversial, that means that even more sources are needed? Hyacinth 07:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SENSE. "Is one reference ever enough?" Yes, sometimes. "Is one high quality source equal to two poor quality sources?" Avoid poor quality sources. "If sources indicate a topic is controversial, that means that even more sources are needed?". Unquestionably. Marskell 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And if the additional sources also indicate the topic is controversial, are even more sources needed?

How does one determine how controversial a topic is in the first place? How could one source be enough? (if it described other sources?) Hyacinth 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See Zeno's paradox and reductio ad absurdum. C'mon! Marskell 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Older FA's

Has there been discussion about how to handle older FA's that don't have in-line citations? I don't see this documented anywhere or previous discussion. -- Stbalbach 17:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many times - including twice in this very talk page's archives (Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article?/Archive_1#References, Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article?/Archive_3#Inline_citations) The answer is that yes, we hold older featured articles up to the same standards as new featured articles. Raul654 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it the current consensus was made de-facto to hold older articles to the new standard, the above links are some general commentaries. There are some very good older FA's created before in-line citation were available (a problematic template system optional). Currently it sounds like articles have 1-month to shape up or ship out. Many of these articles were written by people who are no longer around, and getting the sources to re-write it, or the attention of editors to re-work it, is problematic. Yet, they are good articles. They have Reference sections (the old gold standard) which is the same as published Encyclopedia's - the level of footnoting now required far exceeds all but the most rigorous academic standards. The victims are some excellent articles that get de-featured and no longer receive the readership attention they should. -- Stbalbach 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they aren't necessarily problematic. Many articles (particularly those that don't have extensive other problems) have been salvaged at WP:FAR, which is the main goal of many editors working there. In fact, several articles written by the editor you are concerned about (no longer on Wiki) have been referenced by other editors during FAR, and have had their featured status maintained. That's the idea: you're welcome to dig in and help us preserve the status of FAs. I have a lot of respect for the editors who are saving old stars, rather than promoting new ones without fixing their old ones. Sandy (Talk) 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. As to one month to "shape up or ship out", extra time has always been granted to any article that is actively being worked on and improved. Sandy (Talk) 17:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Which ones? Basically what I'm seeing is User:Lord Emsworth's articles being de-featured mainly on the basis of no in-line footnotes. I looked back through the record and did not see any that were fixed, as you say. Some of them had other problems, which is fine. -- Stbalbach 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to look closer. This discussion is going in circles: I'll step out now. Sandy (Talk) 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to add to this discussion that FAR/C appears to be doing a good job of revamping old FAs. Often, other problems are picked up and worked on in addition to the citations issue. We do go to some trouble to alert projects and contributors to the process, in the hope that they'll display the loyalty that many of these FAs deserve. Tony 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Tony and Sandy. FARC is the best existing way to revamp old FAs.--Yannismarou 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A contradiction

I had operated under the assumption that FA's required inline citations, including nominating FA's for FAR and objecting to FAC's on that basis. However, at the bottom of WP:CITE, I recently noticed this: "The arbiters of the criteria for being a "Good Article" have declared the use of inline citations mandatory, and articles relying on other forms of citation are being delisted as Good Articles. The status of "Featured Article", on the other hand, carries no such requirements on the form of citations." Should that be updated? I would also like to see the inline citation requirement stated more clearly in WIAFA, which would involve the rewording of "and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations". Thoughts? Gzkn 09:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated how? As a practical matter, FAC and FAR reviewers all agree that inline citations are required, where they are appropriate, but without specifying the form of the citations (most use footnote in the <ref> style, but many perfer Harvard citations). Are you proposing that featured articles must have inline citations in a particular format? Which one? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap. I should learn to read closer :) Somehow, I glossed over "the form of". Sorry! And nope, I'm not proposing that the inline citations should be in a particular format. Although reading WP:CITE over again, it's still a little unclear to me. "The arbiters of the criteria for being a "Good Article" have declared the use of inline citations mandatory, and articles relying on other forms of citation are being delisted as Good Articles." Does that mean either footnotes or Harvard is OK? If so, how is that different from FA rules, as suggested in the next sentence? Gzkn 11:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Harvard is acceptable, as it is inline. It's in the text (Smith, 78). As for the sentence you're citing on WP:CITE, I have just removed the second clause relating to FA. No idea what was trying to be said there. Marskell 12:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah much better, thanks! Gzkn 12:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User advice

Just stumbled upon User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA - worth adding? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not too bad. Could use some cleaning up though (seems to ramble in places, and a copyedit would be helpful). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs serious copy-editing; then I'll be pleased to cross-reference from mine. Tony 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Consistent references - mixing Harvard and Chicago

I recently did an informal FA review of Charles Darwin (here) and I noticed that the article mixes the Harvard and Chicago (i.e. footnote) styles of referencing. As we all know, 1c requires compliance with WP:CITE, which in turn requires the consistent use of either (1) Harvard, (2) footnotes or (3) embedded links. Consequently, mixing these reference styles would be a violation of 1c and therefore a (good) reason to object to a FAC and a decent reason to suggest improvement of a current FA (WP:FAR in more egregious cases).

The odd thing about Charles Darwin is that it uses footnotes a lá Chicago, but then formats the actual footnote text as Harvard links to a reference section. (Apparently, this style of referencing was copied from the universally-loved FA Saffron). I just want to clarify whether this style is allowed or not by 1c and CITE - whilst there is an example of how to do this on the talk archive of WP:HARV (here) and although the "Template" section of HARV seems to suggest it is allowed (though it is very unclear), Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples doesn't include it and, personally, I think this mixing goes against citation best practice. I think articles should be referenced using either proper Harvard or proper Chicago, not some odd mixture. What I suspect was the original intention of this kind of mixing can be found here. Mikker ^(...) 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's almost proper Chicago; the correct form would merely change the date to a short-form title (or omit it entirely, if following the 14th ed. rules). Personally, given the wide variety of reference formatting in Wikipedia articles—we're not exactly imposing a full house style—I think such a minor deviation needn't be a cause for concern. Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not so sure there's a minor difference here - the ref style in Saffron seems very far from proper Chicago (like here) or proper Harvard (like this). Perhaps that's subjective opinion, I don't know. Mikker ^(...) 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Richard Dawkins uses full-form Chicago notes~~, which are typically used in cases where there isn't a separate bibliographical listing of works cited. When there is a separate listing, short-form Chicago notes (e.g. here) can be used instead (see 15th ed., §16.41); they're quite similar to the form used in Saffron (with some minor changes in puncutation, and the change from title to year). Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking more closely: Richard Dawkins isn't traditional Chicago footnote style at all, but author-date style (and should thus be using parenthetical citations)! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe Dawkins is a bad example then (but the only thing wrong with it - except for the occasionally incorrectly formatted ref - is the location of the dates.) Chicago reguires, inline "bla bla bla<1>" and then in footnotes "Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, Oxford: OUP, 1973, p12." Harvard requires inline "bla bla bla (Rawls, 1973: 12)" and then in a bibliography "Rawls, J. (1973) A Theory of Justice (Oxford: OUP)". (That at least, is how I was taught...). Now Saffron does inline "bla bla bla<1>" then in the footnotes "Rawls, 1973: 12" THEN in the bibliography "Rawls, J. (1973) A Theory of Justice (Oxford: OUP)". To be proper Harvard or Chicago, either the inline refs should be changed to the Harvard style, or the footnotes ought to be changed to Chicago style. They shouldn't be mixed. Again, maybe this is a aesthetic judgement on my part or something - but I just find the ref style of articles like Saffron terribly confusing. Mikker ^(...) 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, that's the full-form Chicago. The short-form Chicago would have, in the article, "bla bla bla<1>", in the footnotes, "Rawls, Theory of Justice, 12", and then in the bibliography, "Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: OUP, 1973." That's not all that different from what Saffron does. Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This method's not really Harvard referencing but an opportunistic use of the Harvard formatting to allow readers to jump from the notes to the cited book in the list below. It would only mix the two styles if things like (Jones 1889:71) appeared in the text, jostling among the inline cite tags. I've seen this convenience use at Finnish Civil War and when I did some copyediting there found it very helpful. There's certainly some convenience in being able to find a particular book with one click on a long booklist, particularly as for some multi-edited volumes or multi-authored anthologies etc. the author's surname is not always the clue it should be on an alphabetical list. This technique is probably a glimpse of the future, to a day when we'll be able to skate about all over (and under) articles by clicking. The only disadvantage I see at the moment is more difficulty for occasional editors, given the sleight-of-pedia required. qp10qp 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming to this debate rather late, but I see one rather significant advantage to the mix of styles used in the "Saffron" article. It uses MLA as its inline style, then further links to a section using Harvard-style references. The problem with using inline Harvard references (something I've been doing in some of the articles I've been working on), is that they add so much extra-paragraphic text, they make the raw text of the article near-unreadible and editing becomes very difficult. The MLA inline references reduce the amount of inline text, making subsequent edits much easier. Anyway, something to think about. Peter G Werner 02:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, there are a whole lot of articles out there with the "mixed" style. Personally, I think it is an excellent format. It combines the best features of both. The actual text is plenty readable, since all footnote-type data is moved out of the way. The footnotes are VERY easy to read, since there is no mindless repetition of masses of identification info where there are numerous cites from the same source. The bibliography contains exactly what it needs, no more and no less. Wikipedia is definitely not bound by conventions worked out for hardcopy media; we should take full advantage of our hyperlinks (or whatever you want to call them) and develop a reasonable style guide all our own, which will serve as the model for other on-line publications. Although citations are really a minor thing in the grand scheme, I think this should be a policy, not a guideline, so that we have consistency. It's better to have one policy that two guidelines. If it's up for vote, I say we should use Wikipedia citation format. Cbdorsett 19:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, 1(c) asks for a consistent citation format within the article; Harvard, Chicago, and Cite.php are three suggested methods, but they're not the only acceptable ones. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Brilliant"?

I'd like to question the following wording:

"Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.

But "well written" doesn't mean that, does it? Any more than "well dressed" means looking like Leigh Bowery. (I don't mind the word "compelling", because it can mean many things, from "keeps the reader reading" to "riveting".) Is it a good idea to talk about compelling or brilliant prose in bad prose?

It's a welcome bonus if an article is brilliantly written, of course; but the presence of the word "brilliant" on this page does rather put pressure on article writers—at least it does on me. For one thing, I'm not exactly Rudyard Kipling; for another, the nature of Wikipedia articles militates against brilliancy: the demands for a neutral point of view and no original research, for citations, for judicious nibbling and quibbling, for hedgings about, impede any launching of full-throated eloquence on my part—quite rightly. In the circumstances, is the mention of brilliant prose here of much help? qp10qp 06:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot of help: establishes high, professional benchmarks for the standard of writing and formatting. It's a jungle out there on the Internet, and Wikipedia has to fly a flag for exceptional standards in its FAs. To nominate an article for promotion is not an everyday matter; it means that you think it's special. Tony 06:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who knows about good prose, are you happy with a sentence that says "well-written" means "brilliantly written"? It doesn't.

Speaking for myself, I don't want to see brilliant prose on Wikipedia; I want to see the facts and information through the language; I don't want to notice the language. The best word here, for me, is "compelling"; that's the mot juste, as far as I'm concerned. Good modern prose is unassuming, in my opinion, though it can be subtle.

At the moment I am trying to get an article up to FA level, and this suggestion feels like a bridge too far. The article demands very judicious, careful prose; brilliance—even if I could achieve it—might not suit the article, which is about a very famous writer who avoided brilliant prose all his life. To quote him: "You can understand what I mean when I say, "The man sat on the grass", because the sentence is clear and there's nothing to distract your attention...[the meaning should] get through to the brain immediately, which is what all good writing must do, and fast."

Brilliance, in my opinion, will distract attention. I don't think it should be mentioned in the requirements for a featured article. Far from helping me, the advice is blocking me, because I don't understand how to achieve it while carefully writing about facts. qp10qp 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no; I've always been against the word "brilliant", but we must remember that flowery prose with huge words and 10000 redundancies is not "brilliant" prose; however, succinct, crisp wording is. — Deckill e r 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "compelling and professional" would be a compromise. — Deckill e r 16:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we need a compromise word. "Well-written" and "compelling" would cover it, in my opinion. Whatever our aspirations, we know that a well-written article can reach featured status, though a compellingly written one would be the cake with the cream, of course.

I doubt anything I say here will make any difference, because "brilliant prose", like (the equally offputting, in my opinion) "verifiablity, not truth", has become a Wikipedia shibboleth; and so cognitive dissonance may prevent editors from looking at the notion afresh.

Outside Wikipedia, it seems to me, this term has no currency as a criterion for modern writing (though I might have heard it used of Booker winner John Banville, who in my opinion writes as if Milton never died). My many books on writing and on the English language fail resolutely to use the expression (the most useful guides I have are Style, by Joseph.M.Williams, Simple and Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers by Jacques Barzun, and On Writing Well: A Guide to Writing Non-Fiction by William Zinsser), and so I am bewildered at the idiosyncratic insistence on this particular criterion by Wikipedia.

I just searched for books on "brilliant writing" at Amazon.UK. and found one book, called How to be a Brilliant Writer, but it is aimed at 9-12 year-olds; a search for "brilliant prose" yielded no results at all. Plenty for "good writing", though (the word "good" appears sufficient for even the most exacting guides on writing). But type in "writing well", and you're away. So, what is going on? Why is our extra criterion so unsourceable? And what does one read to address it (with respect, Tony's marvellous pages encourage good, clear writing, but not, in practice, brilliance—whatever [because I'm starting to wonder about it] that is). qp10qp 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance? Good one, I was going to say 'sentimentality'. "Brilliant prose" was the original name of "Featured articles" (see Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive1#'Brilliant prose' is a very bad name). And I agree it should be replaced with something more pragmatic. ·maclean 05:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere. Seriously, now that the word "professional" has been inserted into the lead ("A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation"), I have no qualms about removing "brilliant"—having thought about it, I agree with the arguments above. In fact, I now cite "professional" when critiquing, not 1a itself. Ia, then, could be simply: '"Well written" means that the prose is compelling'. "Professional" and "compelling" are thus covered after the removal of "brilliant".

However, this leaves 1a looking a little stubby. Another option is to relocate "professional" from the lead to 1a, dropping the bit about "professional presentation" as being a little vague and covered elsewhere in the criteria. It would look like this:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes:

It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
- (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling and of professional standard.

This second option might solve the "brilliant" issue and offer slightly more precision (I was never happy with "features professional standards of .."—might feature them in patches and not in other parts. It's been a problem that the lead brushes on 1a, anyway. Tony 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC) PS This is what Deckiller's proposing above, I see. Tony 07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. The main opposition will be based on nostalgia; by removing the word "brilliant", we sever the ties between FAC and the old "brilliant prose" days. Wikipedia is an aspect of a business, and businesses cannot become locked up in the past (plus, they must be professional :)) — Deckill e r 08:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In view of the above comments, I propose:

"Well written" means that the prose is professional, even compelling.

This stops short of mandating compelling prose (because not all featured articles will meet that ideal) but indicates that compelling prose is our highest standard. The word "professional" seems to me very useful: it may be taken to describe prose meeting the standards of reliably published newspapers and books, and it covers everything from basic accuracy of language to excellence—come to that, brilliance—of prose. qp10qp 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Professional prose" doesn't make sense". "Prose of professional standard" is better. I don't like the downgrading of "compelling". These are not just good WP articles; they're to be FAs. Tony 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you view as the practical distinction implied by the term "compelling"? Particularly, what do you see as the sort of actionable objections you would offer on that basis, that wouldn't be possible if we simply required a professional standard. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Compelling" = convincing, persuasive, cogent, irresistible, powerful, strong, weighty, plausible, credible, sound, valid, telling.
"Professional" = expert, accomplished, skillful, masterly, masterful, fine, polished, skilled, proficient, competent, able, experienced, practiced, trained.

There's a sense in the first of engaging effectively with the readers, and in the second of technical proficiency. Tony 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I accept your point that "of a professional standard" is better. I'm finding it tricky to combine that with the "compelling" element without implying that good writing equals compelling writing, which it doesn't. I like the word "compelling" because it contains the idea of prose which invites the reader to read on, a quality not always present in featured articles. I don't agree that my version downgraded "compelling"; in fact, it presented it as the highest standard, beyond prose merely well-written and professional. And we all know that professionally written articles aren't necessarily compelling, Óengus I of the Picts, for example. I love that article, but the material, which requires strange names and constant hedging, doesn't lend itself to compelling prose. What is to be done with passages like:

To the south-west of Pictland were the Gaels of Dál Riata where the kingship was disputed between the Cenél Loairn of northern Argyll and the Cenél nGabráin of Kintyre. In 723 Selbach mac Ferchair abdicated as head of the Cenél Loairn and king of Dál Riata in favour of his son Dúngal, who was driven out as king of Dál Riata by Eochaid mac Echdach of the Cenél nGabráin in 726. Dúngal and Eochaid were still in conflict as late as 731, when Dúngal burnt Tarbert.

It is well written and professionally written, but I'm not sure it could ever be compellingly written, which is why I think "compelling" should be presented as our highest standard but not as an actual requirement. qp10qp 01:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This quote could easily be rewritten in a compelling way, starting with something like:

The Gaels of Dál Riata inhabited the plains to the southwest of Pictland, where the kingship was disputed between two powerful figures: the Cenél Loairn (of northern Argyll) and the Cenél nGabráin (of Kintyre).

But let's walk before we run: it's not yet of a professional standard, because the logical flow isn't clear, particularly from the first to the second sentences.

To respond to your concern above, I think that the "even ..." downgrades the epithet, as now for "compelling, even brilliant". The meaning is that is has to be compelling, but it doesn't have to be brilliant, although it would be nice if it were. I'm wary of demoting "compelling" to this "would be nice, but is not necessary for promotion" sense. Tony 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break and simple suggestion

I suggest
"Well written" means that the prose is excellent.
To me that implies that the prose is highly appropriate for its purpose: that it fits the type of subject, is compelling where compellingness suits, is merely accomplished or professional where not. It would—surely?—be a sturdier criterion than the present "compelling, even brilliant". An objection that "that's not excellent prose" would be actionable, it seems to me. Certainly more so than "that's not compelling or brilliant." Saves words, too. Bishonen | talk 08:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't mind that. Tony 09:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "excellent", though I am happy with "compelling"; but I reserve a mild semantic objection to any construction of the form "well written means that...", because "well-written means that the prose is excellent" or "well written means that the prose is compelling" are inaccurate statements; the only accurate one would be the tautological "well written means that the writing is good". Yes, these sentences have a wikipedia subtext that we all understand (as far as wikipedia is concerned, "well written" means "excellent prose"), but "well" is the adverbial form of "good", not of "excellent". It would be embarrassing, at least to this user, to see us promote well-written or excellent prose in a badly written or naff sentence.

But I think we are getting there. qp10qp 15:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the suggestions, qp10qp. We're not trying to gloss "well written", but "it is well written", where "it" stands for "the article". "The article is well written means that the prose is excellent/compelling/whatever." Please take a look at the project page. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, let's place the whole thing here:

It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.

(a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.

The second sentence (a) seems to me an attempt to gloss the quality "well written". Although "the article" is understood, it is not the subject of this sentence; "well written" (not "it", the article, but a quality of that article) is the subject of this sentence. It's no big deal, but, for me, "'well written' means that the prose is excellent" is an inherently inaccurate statement. One way round it might be to forget trying to make one thing mean another and to put "excellently written" or "written in excellent prose" in place of "well written" in the first of the two sentences above; then we might lose the explanation at a) altogether and achieve semantic clarity and concision into the bargain. qp10qp 00:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The ellision is "To be ...". "To be well written means that ...". Tony 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very late to this, but I was just reading the page to familiarize myself with the criteria and I found "brilliant" very ambiguous. Howard Cleeves 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

proposed name change

I seem to remember that a similar proposal was howled down a while ago. I can live with the current name, but I do think that the proposal has merit. Tony 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposed name clearly describes the content of the page. But so does the current name. The move seems like useless paper shuffling. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The same move was rejected for (amongst other reasons) creating an handy initialization for this page of "FAC" - sound familiar? I see no need to move it from one accurate title to another. Yomangani ^talk 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noted this discussion on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture#Requested move; but further comments may be more useful there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are citations a toolkit, or a shibboleth?

If they are a toolkit, multiple forms of citation may be expected in a single article, as they are at Pericles; different tools serve different purposes. Pericles makes a systematic distinction between <ref> and {{ref}}; other articles are less systematic, but still have clear reasons to use different forms of citation at different points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Pericles has only one form of citation. (It does have two forms of footnotes, but that's not the same thing; only one of those is used for source citations.) Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not how I would phrase the distinction; there are (or were) citations in the extended footnotes too. But even if this is not the best example, there remain examples where different forms of citation are rightly used in the same article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is to ensure that the necessary citation data is provided in whatever format. Some formats lend themselves to this better than others; in-text external links are particularly problematic since it is difficult to attach the desired information (author, etc.). In general, I think any reasonable (not necessarily 100% consistent) style should be alright. For instance, an article that mostly cites books but has a few online references may want to use author-date for the book references and footnotes for the few others. I wouldn't see a problem with this. Regarding <ref> and {{ref}} in particular, their auto-numbering features don't work together, so unless you are using one for discursive footnotes and the other for short citations, they probably ought not to be mixed. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Another example of mixed referencing is at recursion theory. The print references are cited parenthetically, but references to online sources go in footnotes. This is the style I am used to using for journals, and I find it uncomfortable see links to websites called "references". I assume that Pmanderson is concerned about whether these mixed schemes can get through FA review. (N.B. recursion theory is NOT an FA candidate, so I don't need a full description of its flaws.). CMummert · talk 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as all data is available, citations can be extremely diversified. Just look at Hippocrates. I have serious issues with it, but it provides a good example of the varieties of ways people have adaptated our systems. personally, I prefer seeing {{ref}} mostly when more than one "notes" section is desired.Circeus 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to rethink images

As you all know, at WP:FAC articles have generally been expected to have a fair number of images, and a lead image illustrating the subject has been considered essential. Given Kat Walsh's directive in this e-mail, I wonder if it might be time to rethink that expectation, and to change criterion 3 to reflect the problems inherent in over-reliance on fair use images. I do not think this is an easy question to answer but I propose to begin a conversation based on Kat's e-mail. Chick Bowen 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a close read doesn't really appear to be changing anything in this area. We still require (probably overly) strict fair use rationales, and the e-mail isn't abandoning fair use, so yeah. The actual Foundation statement may say differently, though... --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that at least 90% of the images that are tagged as "fair use" are going to end up being deleted per our new Foundation-level guidelines. For instance, every single screencap of a television show, of which we have tens of thousands, is unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope not. That seems excessive and beyond the scope of even what's being said. Unless we're trying to create a shitstorm, of course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good - it's about time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All right--how's this: I propose the following emendation to criterion 3:

It should have images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status, unless doing so would require excessive reliance on fair use images.

Chick Bowen 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There will be situations where several fair use images are fairly used, the best we could go for is,

It should have images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status, where fair use images are used they must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly

I'm pretty shocked to see some FAC articles with multiple FU images without meeting FU criteria, some without rationales. Carnidilo used to object to every such article, and I do when I spot them, but all reviewers should be checking this. --Peta 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would if I could - it's still Greek to me. And no one else is doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Things to look for that come up frequently in FACs; first does use of the image meet the criteria. Specifically, does the image page contain accurate source information and have a fair use rationale (FUC 10)? And does the material contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) (FUC 8)? --Peta 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And is it replaceable? (Just what "replaceable" means is subject to debate, but is tending to be more strictly interpreted by WP nowadays than is provided by the common law). Tony 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was on a related crusade awhile back to try to find at least one free image for every FA, and found a lot of stuff that was overlooked in the FAC process (probably because the issue wasn't addressed).--Pharos 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really wish someone would take up the crusade. I really can't add another area (particularly one I'm not familiar with) to the list of things I review. I'm equally alarmed at the number of articles that get through that don't conform with basic WP:MOS guidelines and other such fundamentals. I recall a time when Peta or Jkelly used to check all FACs for Fair Use on images - I do wish someone would take up that task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My image reviewing tapered off when I noticed that I was getting somewhat grumpy about it -- it seemed like every article I looked at had some kind of imagevio in it. It wasn't just Wikipedia:Fair use problems, either, it was images sourced to someplace with no copyright information, images with made-up licensing claims, etc. It's just a lot easier when someone comes to me and says "Hi, can you help me sort this out" as opposed to showing up here and, um, rain on someone's parade. Jkelly 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Peta above. Except that in the interests of grammar and newbie-friendly wikilinking, the text should be

It should have images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. If any fair use images are used, they must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.

--Quuxplusone 18:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image survey

Per some of the comment above, I've started Wikipedia:Featured articles/Image survey. If you're interesting in supporting free content in featured articles, try filing a report. Thanks.--Pharos 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Upside-down lists of works

If you spot a list of works, or a list of awards, that is in reverse-chronological order, please either correct it to chronological order as per the manual of style at WP:LOW, or tag it with the template {{MOSLOW}}. This template looks like this:

A helpful tool is User:Whilding87/ListReverser.

Addition

In light of the conversation above, the consensus seems to be that not every FA should be considered for the Main Page - i.e. the criteria are different. I suggest we hammer out these criteria and include them in a new section on this page.

For starters this is what I suggest:

Today's featured article

Not all articles that are eligible for Featured Article status are suitable for diplay on the main page. Main page articles are selected from the pool of Features Articles to [promote the project to potential users and editors by illustrating the range of topics covered by the project]

What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrewRT (talk • contribs).

Well, for starters, I know that WP:TFA currently says, "Raul654 (the ratified featured article director) maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This addition is in appropriate for these criteria Raul654 18:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't broke --> don't fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye. It ain't broke. Worry about it if it breaks. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So is one expected to know intuitively the width and breadth of that list or can one actually try to inquire about certain cases? I'm asking because I got the impression from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Cannibal Holocaust that it was handled more like an awkward embarrassment than a serious request to highlight a controversial topic.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Killing "where appropriate"

I have just removed the troublesome phrase "where appropriate" in favour of "in accordance with attribution and other Wikipedia policies". I know this is bold given how controversial the phrase has been, but I think it's totally sensible and it's what our best articles do anyhow. After much heavy lifting, WP:ATT is now our centralized policy for this (V, NOR, and RS are deprecated). Obviously, FAs should not meet a standard less than policy, but they don't have to meet a greater standard, either. So let's just point to the policy. The only quibble is that embedded links are still allowed by policy, but not on FAs. Marskell 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact is simply that embedded link are not allowable as a final system, but okay for a rough and temporary one that will eventually switch to properly formatted footnotes. That's how I'm taking them in my essay User:Circeus/Referencing styles, anyway. SO it all make sense in the end.Circeus 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Killing "in accordance with attribution and other Wikipedia policies"

Killing "where appropriate" is all very well, but replacing it with "complemented by inline citations in accordance with attribution" can be read in two different ways: 1) "complemented by inline citations because WP:A says so" or 2) "complemented by inline citations to the extent that WP:A prescribes". This ambiguity is undesirable in itself. Worse, the first reading is TME (to my ear©) the most natural one, and it tightens the criterion into saying inline references are obligatory. I advise against leaving such a point of controversy to the hope that the reader will click on the link and study WP:A. We need to be clear about it on this page. Quoting directly from WP:A, I have changed the text to:

(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are attributable to reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. See the attribution policy for information on when and how extensively references are provided" etc.

Bishonen | talk 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

The "where appropriate" requirement was unnecessarily vague, but symptomatic of a larger problem. Nowhere on Wikipedia is there a good guide of when citations are (or are not) necessary. I was working on a guide, prior to when Marskell removed the "where appropriate" clause from the requirements. However, I think it would be appropriate to get everyone's input as to it - User:Raul654/When to cite. I'd also like to address what I see as an increasingly common problem - people bombing an article with {{fact}} tags. The newly rewritten section says "Any material that has been challeneged or is likely to be challeneged." However, I've noticed that some people on some articles (especially things like Evolution or Global warming) go through and challenege every statement, common knowledge or otherwise. I'd like to address this. Raul654 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to leave it "where appropriate" interimly, while we decide on this? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If we get rid of "where appropriate," Bishonen's solution is better than just ripping it. I generally agree, though, that a way to solve indecision and lack of consensus isn't to get rid of two words. I also applaud anyone who can get the mad "fact" bombers to stop. Geogre 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was just "ripped." WP:ATT was explicitly cited to replace "where appropriate" (I do understand the hair-splitting in the first reply, and didn't think the wording would be final—I thought posting directly would more quickly elicit comments.) That Bishonen has replaced this with the more specific, but still canonical, "quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" is totally wicked, as far as I'm concerned. That's exactly what I wanted to put in, but was afraid of the challenges.
Re "fact bombers", this is the point: if we are arguing in terms of WP:ATT, we have an established basis that the community at large can understand. It won't be FAR or FARC that has a problem, but our main content policy. Take it up there first, and then come back to FAR or FARC with the consensus. Marskell 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To add, I like Raul's little list of things to cite at User:Raul654/When to cite:

Quotations [a hard rule, IMO]
Data [a little troublesome] and statistics
Counter-intuitive statements: A statement that is likely to surprise the reader [yes, debatable, but in keeping with "likely to be challenged"] Marskell 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope people do realize that, for all practical purposes, Inline citations are necessary requisites to Featured Article status? Right now, on the FAC page, 6 articles have comments as to not having (or having no) "enough inline citations", and digging through the archives would easily bring up DOZENS of examples. I myself have opposed numerous times on that basis before. Circeus 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Those are non-actionable objections, then. The author(s) are free to ignore them entirely, so long as they cite appropriately and in a format that is consistent. You folks can stamp your feet and turn blue, but the fact is that these are not legitimate objections. Insufficient references is a valid objection, but not "no footnotes." I have just gotten word of yet another FA author who will never submit again thanks to the small minded, blinkered, hubris of people who can't read but must comment anyway. Geogre 12:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at two of the comments voicing concerns about "the general paucity of citation" in the current nomination of medieval cuisine. It's nice to see that they weren't actually objections, but it's still very, very obvious that they were made by editors who don't know the topic and who didn't tried to make any closer examination of the notes, but felt empowered by the notion that no article with less than 40-50 footnotes can be a proper "modern" FA. The habit of counting footnotes has obviously had a very strong normative effect on the FAC-process. By now a hundred editors, eager to please these kinds of mildly nonsensical requests to get their articles a featured status, must've sprinkled thousands of notes just to make the article look better to uninformed reviewers.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, you will not find a page with no quotations or material likely to be challenged. But we don't require inline citations simply for the sake of having them. I hate "one per paragraph" comments, for instance. One paragraph may require two or three and a group of intro paragraphs may require none. Marskell 07:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it has become common to say 'not enough inline citations' as a general abbreviation for 'I find this article so drastically undercited, and so poor in other areas, that it would be a waste of time to identify specifics'. And thus there are a few users who see the 'not enough' and propagate it in its literal form, making complaints about things like footnote density without consulting the text to determine if there are actually any statements in need of explicit citation.

While improving the wording of the criterion is a step in the right direction, any form that contains or implies 'likely to surprise' or 'likely to be challenged' will ultimately reduce to the same thing as 'where appropriate' does: 'Well, I didn't know that; it surprised me, so you have to cite it.' We currently have people making claims of that form about the most obvious and trivial statements, which a) encourages people who are totally unfamiliar with an article's subject to review it in checklist fashion, and b) makes legitimate citation requests sound like shrubbery demands. Opabinia regalis 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first is very good analysis of what's happened. On second, the point is to shift the burden to what our policy says and not have novel wording here. "Likely to be challenged" is newish wording developed at V and moved to ATT, which has rapidly become widely quoted. It still does beg "by whom?", but if we're going to ever try to unpack it, it can be done at (the still very busy) WT:ATT rather than here. Marskell 09:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Where appropriate" is hardly novel - it has been here for years, and has only become an issue more recently, when the mania for footnotes has taken a stronger hold. Rather than trying to reflect what WP:ATT says, should we not just wait for the dust to settle at WP:ATT and than see whether we need to make changes here?

Is there anything particularly wrong with "where appropriate", other than the feeling that some people seem to have that it is not specific enough? But then "likely to be challenged" is hardly any more specific than "where appropriate". -- ALoan (Talk) 12:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Novel" meaning "original"; the sentence wasn't based on any other policy or guideline. And I think "likely to be challenged" is more specific than "where appropriate," which can mean anything you want it to mean. That Paris is the capital of France is not likely to be challenged, and doesn't need to be cited, regardless of someone's personal definition of "appropriate." In fact, I think this actually tightens things for the people concerned about too many citation requests.

As for ATT settling down, I was suggesting the talk is still too busy to raise significant changes. The page itself is in good shape and hasn't changed a whole lot since going live. The critical sentences "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material" are very unlikely to be significantly altered (as long as Slim is editing, anyhow). They had stood, with minor differences, on V for months. Marskell 17:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, even the claim that "Paris is the capital of France" begs at least three questions - "what is Paris", "what is France", and "what is a capital" (not to mention "what does 'is' mean").

Capital - de facto? de jure? administrative? legislative? ecclesiastical? Is there a loi telling us that it is the capital, and for what purposes?
Is/France - As of 2007? What about when the city was occupied by the Germans, or the English in the Hundred Years War? Was the capital in Paris when the court was in Chinon or Versailles, or the government was in Vichy or in exile in London...?
Paris - believe me, I know from bitter experience that the commonsense definition of the city of Paris diverges wildly from the official Ville de Paris, as distinct from the surrounding Paris metropolitan area (aire urbaine) which spreads into the surrounding départments of the Île-de-France région.

Not that I see it as a problem (edit mercilessly, etc) but WP:ATT is more "novel" (in the sense of "new" and in the sense of "original") than WP:WIAFA, which has remained largely the same for years. I don't strongly disagree with removing "where appropriate" and replacing it with "likely to be challenged" in due course - it is, after all, meant to be descriptive of community consensus as to best practice, not prescriptive as to the practice that the relatively few authors of WP:ATT consider must be adopted - but I am not convinced that "likely to be challenged" takes us much further. Any statement can be challenged, and, given the wide spread of opinions of editors, is likely to be eventually. Whether a challenge needs to be taken seriously is another matter (and "appropriate" recognises that implicitly already). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ALoan, I can post any example and you can find three or thirty rejoinders. The reductio ad absurdum is easy to invoke. I said "Paris is the capital of France" is not a statement likely to be challenged, not that it is an unchallengeable statement, because those don't exist.

"Appropriate", taken alone, implies some elided, but agreed upon, sensibility. Which is what? As of right now, it's "statements likely to be challenged"; all the change has done is to make explicit what was implicit. What has been the argument at the Rest. Lit. FAR if not "none of this is likely to be challenged"?

WP:ATT is not new or original. It's five months old, and all of its material is derived from long-standing content at V, NOR, and RS. There's nothing in it that you wouldn't have been able to point in the superceded pages. And I don't know what number constitutes "relatively few authors"; it's had a hell of a lot more authors than WP:WIAFA. Too many.

Anyway, if you don't strongly disagree, I don't see why we don't just leave this. Marskell 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that reductio ad absurdum? If we are serious about attribution of any fact that is or "is likely to be" challenged, we will end up with a forest of footnotes on every article, supporting the most banal of details. To use your expression, "likely", taken alone, implies some elided, but agreed upon, sensibility (as to how likely a challenge is, in this case). Saying that a fact is not likley to be challenged simply invites the rejoinder, "well, I challenge it".

I don't strongly object, because I don't think it changes things very much. However, I am not convinced that the new words make the criteria any better - we just end up arguing about how "likely" a challenge is, as opposed to arguing about how "appropriate" a citation is. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On last, first: again, even if it is just as likely to be argued over, it becomes a problem of policy qua policy, not a problem for FAR or FAC.

On first: "likely" in "likely to be challenged" is a real world sensibility. "Paris is the capital of France" is not likely to be challenged by any one I meet, anywhere, at anytime, period. "Appropriate" in "citations where appropriate" is an appeal to an entirely intra-Wiki sensibility. Which is what? As of right now, it's "statements likely to be challenged". Circle circled. Marskell 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Granted that this isn't representative of the entire problem, but it does give food for thought. That's basically the "Paris is the capital of France", except it didn't even seem to require a fact-tag. (Don't worry, I was quick to spot it.) How can we honestly say that "likely to be challenged" won't be interpreted as a support for this kind of pseudo-academical carpet bombing of citations?

Would it really be too much to ask if we actually tried to suggest some restraint in these guidelines? Considering how people have gone completely bonkers with citations of many, if not most, recent FAs, wouldn't it be appropriate to try to rein them in just a little? I mean, we don't have to demand that they need a degree to object, but it does seem reasonable to hint that they should do the barest minimum of research before plastering articles with either fact tags or footnotes. Or for that matter objecting to an FAC because they've merely counted footnotes. Anything that doesn't so obviously give people the impression that their own lack of knowledge of a topic is enough to call something either controversial or obscure.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since FAR and FAC is where the argument will take place, I expect this will have very little practical effect on this process. To provide direct examples, it does not resolve the Rest. Lit. FAR and it would not have resolved the Palladian architecture FAR. So those arguments and ones like them will continue unabated. That said, I think it is a worthwhile change if only that it consolidates the language. To ALoan -- simply saying you challenge a piece of information is not actually a challenge; a challenge consists of a reason to doubt the accuracy of a statement. Or at least that is what I understand it mean. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for that one. The next time someone objects pointing to paucity of citations, I will have to remember to ask for some evidence giving reason to doubt on the accuracy of an article. I have no problem if the "challenger" has to make a prima facie case that a claim is untrue, but the situation is usually "prove to me that you have a source for this fact" or, in many cases, "... a sufficiently large number of facts in this article for me to believe the rest". -- ALoan (Talk) 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important not to discourage doubt, because that is how we keep articles clean of false statements. But one should at least be able to explain why you are challenging a statement, even if that explanation is "I read book X and as I recall it stated the opposite" or something similarly vague. The point is to encourage critical reading rather than being counting, and to make the request for citations a dialog. Clearly, "I am challenging sufficently many statements that the resulting article has at least one citation in every section" is right out. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I liked Raul's take on the matter, it really is time to say say when citations are appropriate. I wonder if 'challenged or likely to be challenged' which is still quite nebulous, might be better defined as something like - likely to surprise an informed reader. Naturally, the notion of the informed reader then needs to be defined, but could become a 'construct' akin to the The man on the Clapham omnibus (legal test for reasonableness in English law). Sorry to get all legal here but a hard and fast(ish) rule is the only way I can see at the moment to bring some sanity to the problem.--Joopercoopers 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of the phrases put forward here — "likely to be challenged," "according to the reasonable man/the man in the street/the man on the Clapham omnibus" — are saying the same thing, which is "use your common sense." I'm not sure we can go much further than that, because at some point whether to provide a citation boils down to good editorial judgment, which we can't really help people with. All the policies rely on people using their common sense; any policy could produce absurd results if taken to extremes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines took some flak a while back for supporting the idea that an uninformed or under-researched challenge/citation request could be met by providing the challenger with a reference on the talk page, rather than including it in the article. Regardless of the exact wording of the criterion, the contention there made me wonder how anyone will be successfully persuaded that his citation request is just inappropriate. It's easy to say here that challenging a claim must consist of more than 'I didn't know that', but the fact of the matter is that these disputes get taken seriously even when they're complete nonsense, via the argument that part of being an FA is meeting such challenges. Opabinia regalis 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that you want a bit of vagueness, because as I said it is important never to inhibit good-faith, pointed, critical reading and verification of our articles. You shouldn't necessarily have to be informed, just thoughtful and aware of your own limits. Frankly, reviewers who approach articles in this way seem likely to find that the writers of the material are willing to help, though perhaps that is simply idealism. A contrary attitude has gripped many FAC and FAR reviews in the past few months, an attitude which I would characterize as "2 footnotes per paragraph, now off to the stacks with you!" This attitude is unconstructive, encourages superficiality on the part of reviewers, and antagonizes writers. An object example of the disease: "There are five complete sections that are uncited, which is ubsurd to consider for FA status." It is simply that to which I would like to put a stop. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While WIAFA is excellent for it's brevity, we might solve some of this by creating an FAQ. "What does 'likely to be challenged' mean in the context of FAC or a FAR?" could be the first question. Marskell 08:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[← returning to the left margin]

Um, if the idea is to conform WP:WIAFA with WP:ATT, so the former simply reflects the latter, then surely your FAQ should be "what does 'likely to be challenged' mean" in general, not just in the context of FAC/FAR/etc. If not, don't you risk a divergence of treatment between what WIAFA and ARR respectively require?

If a FAQ is a solution, why not provide guidance as to what "appropriate" means in WIAFA? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what would be best is bringing up the debate on ATT itself and having it unpacked there, and then keeping the language completely consolidated. It's just that it's talk is still getting hit be like four threads a day. I'll post to individuals, maybe.

I have thought of an FAQ previously for a variety of the little things that are constantly brought up: there is no "importance" requirement for FAs; it's comprehensiveness, not length; Harvard referencing is not deprecated, etc. Marskell 12:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a subpage of talk:WP:ATT to thrash this out, to cushion it from the general traffic the talk page is getting right now. The FAQ seems like an excellent idea, but its only ever going to be guidance - we really need the policy spelling out I think? --Joopercoopers 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be only a guide—a short Q&A, not an essay. As for a talk ATT sub, we need to wait until the handful of people carpet bombing the talk itself desist. I rather liked The man on the Clapham omnibus suggested above. Perhaps "an informed but not necessarily specialist reader". Marskell 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it kind of implies I think, an adult person who has graduated high school with a reasonable standard of education. Mr and Ms Average, Mondeo man from middle England, Middle America, Middle Australia or wherever, middle class, a white collar worker or skilled labour maybe but certainly not an academic. We can perhaps visualise this person and ask whether or not its reasonable to assume he would be surprised by the statement that is made, if so then it should be cited (in addition to dates, quotations and statistics) --Joopercoopers 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Middle Canada. Bah, a redlink. Marskell 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Manitoba? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Manitobans try to avoid that place because it sets record temperature lows every winter. The "middle" of Canada ("middle" meaning "centre" or "place of only real importance") is obviously Toronto—but watch who you say that to. Marskell 20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in terms of population, but geographically, I believe you were looking for Central Canada. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He he. Google "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark". Wait: Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark. How is that another redlink?! Anti-(Western-)Canadian systemic bias. I'm not having it! (Though we are wildly off-topic.) Marskell 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Raul's guidelines are mostly fine, but this one (There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article) I'm not too sure about. Would that mean summary articles could be FA without citations? It'd be good if someone added something to Raul's guidelines about having to verify some other specific things too (if consensus is reached by the rest of the community of course);

1. Controversial information, eg. "He smoked crack on a frequent basis", "he was by and large a racist" or similar such statements.

2. Sections in biographical articles dealing with a subject's cultural impact and / or impact in their chosen field, eg. "X band was a major influence in the Y genre", "Z person's achievements in this field meant that A, B and C was possible" etc.

What does everyone else reckon about these two points being refined and shaped by the community, and then included in Raul's guidelines? LuciferMorgan 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So i'm clear - do you mean that 1 and 2 should be criteria for in-line citation or attribution (reference section)? --Joopercoopers 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul has drafted a guideline paper for inline citations relating to FA. I mean that 1 and 2 should be added to Raul's guidelines as to what should be cited. LuciferMorgan 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Controversial information - For the examples you give I'd have no problem, but the difficulty will be that it leaves the door open for almost anything to be construed as controversial and so we're back to square one. I'd give some thought to 'Very controversial information'.

2. Biographies of living people or where there's a risk of wikipedia being sued by someone's estate do need a different level of referencing - but this is covered in Raul's redirect. I also think that statements like "Captain Beefheart and the Magic band were extremely influential" doesn't require citation, because it falls under 'common knowledge' for most music fans which is already dealt with and so we get back to the 'if it's not common knowledge, then it may surprise the man on the clapham omnibus (who, when reading music articles, is a moderate music fan)' --Joopercoopers 19:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the influence bit - when writing a music article, it is for the whole Wikipedia community, not just music fans. For example, Captain Beefheart being influential would have to be cited or lest it is opinion - it also leaves the door open for the crufties to drool over their fave bands by making pretentious and questionable statements. LuciferMorgan 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If we were to start an FAQ...

We might unpack "likely to be challenged" with: "Statements for which an informed but not necessarily specialist reader might offer plausible alternative explanation." I would like to add, but forsee some difficulties, something like the following: "If you nothing about a topic, be careful about challenging its assertions because you may only exasperate the people who do. If you know something about a topic, offer a plausible reason why assertion(s) might be wrong; if you are the editor being challenged in this way, a cite is expected. Those reviewing should be proportionate; those having an article they have worked on reviewed, should be responsive to challenges."

Again, it would be best if this were developed at ATT first, and then brought back here. There's an Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ but it's still in the proposal stage. Marskell 10:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT already deals with this issue, and I wouldn't want to see the policy changed to accommodate concerns here, because it's working quite well as it is. The policy says:

Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link ...
Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found — except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately.

It seems to me that that's clear enough. It's basically: by all means ask for sources but don't be a dick about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the current wording has resulted in a culture at FAC and FAR, where the opinion is every sentence can be questioned and therefore needs to be cited - we do need to look at the policy because common sense isn't prevailing and unfortunately that means codifying what sort of statements need citing. --Joopercoopers 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should change a long-standing policy because of the behavior of a small number of people at FAC and FAR. My worry is that any attempt to expand on "likely to be challenged" will lead to endless wikilawyering. Roughly how many people are asking for too many citations, and can you give a couple of examples? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur that we shouldn't make policy around a small number of problem behaviors; you can't legislate common sense, and for every example, there's a counter-example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Picking two extremes, how about the FACs for Adam Gilchrist and Medieval cuisine (both excellent articles, but with radically different approaches to inline citation). You might also like to look at the closed FAR of Palladian architecture (an excellent article, but considered to be lacking in inline citations by a significant segment of FAR reviewers) and the current FARs of Restoration literature (also generally considered excellent, but thought by some to be lacking in inline citations) and Richard O'Connor (definitely lacking in some areas, but not as bad as some people are making out). -- ALoan (Talk) 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ALoan. I see what you mean! First, Adam Gilchrist is over-sourced, no question. There's even a citation confirming that he's an Australian cricketer. :-( I find the sourcing in Medieval cuisine not too bad, given the topic; it would need more if it were a contentious subject, but I doubt people are fighting in the aisles over whether almond milk was used instead of cow's milk during Lent.

As for the others, they do need more references, but I have to say I'm not keen on the concept of FAR. FAs written a while ago likely won't have as many citations as FAs written now, and FAs written now may lack some qualities that FAs in two years' time will all have. Reviewing all FAs is a huge expenditure of time and energy, and there's no obvious benefit outweighing the cost, plus there's the possibility of alienating the original writers. I think if editors feel an article needs citations, they should add them rather delisting because of it. As soon as you invent a process that invites fresh objections, people will indeed turn up to object, and the most obvious objections nowadays to older FAs is that they lack inline citations, so that's going to be heard over and over again. It has the knock-on effect of people blaming WP:ATT, thinking it too anal. In fact, ATT makes it clear that, although all material in Wikpedia must be attributable to a reliable published source (that is, it must not be original research), not everything must actually be attributed, which is an important distinction, obviously, otherwise we end up with articles about Australian cricketers having references to prove that the subject of the article isn't some sort of imposter.

How about adding a paragraph to the criteria about the need for common sense, and perhaps give a few examples of citations gone wild? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a paragraph in the featured article criteria saying to use common sense - common sense is obviously required required to interpret them. I have said it before, but it bares repeating: Wikipedia's rules/policy/guidelines like this are not legislation, and should not be read in a legalistic manner. They are descriptions of community consensus, and need to be interpreted purposively.

Your distinction between attributible and attributed seems to be lost on some people.

I have corrected my earlier comment above: the FAR of Restoration literature is still open - it is currently in the FARC section. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be running into this problem in a lot of places lately. It seems to me that there are a number of editors who have acquired a very literal-minded understanding of policy, perhaps after they were told about citations in a simplified, Lie-to-children sort of way. See, for example, some of the comments on this TfD, where the 'all articles need footnotes' memes are out in full force. If the attribution FAQ doesn't end up clarifying this matter further, then an FA-specific FAQ could at least keep the problem under control for the articles we're presenting as our best. Marskell's wording above would be an excellent start. Opabinia regalis 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

An example I noticed yesterday: "[Michael Jordan] quickly became a fan favorite for his exciting high flying style of play and daring drives to the basket." A reviewer called this hyperbole—fair enough. And also suggested it should be sourced—wtf? Rather than adding a paragraph here, how about we mass produce a video: Citations Gone WildTM. Profit could go to the Foundation.

As for the point of FAR, it is time-consuming, but if our FAs are only as good as their worst member, those from '04 and '05 need to be gone through. There's some bad ones still left. Marskell 07:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your last paragraph: a "bad" featured article does not make the rest any worse, IMHO. But we certainly should keep them all under review. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Marskell: two reasons. When new editors set out to write an FA (or any article, for that matter), they may look to examples of featured articles on similar topics for guidance. WIAFA used to include the wording "examples of our best work"; I'm sorry we deleted that, as featured articles did/do provide guidance for new editors, and should follow core guidelines. I'm discouraged that so few reviewers check articles to make sure basic guidelines are followed, and that some editors engage in disparaging the few who do. Also, we inevitably see the comment at FAC and FAR, "Well, I compared to article so-and-so and it had such-and-such, so why should my article be held to standard?" Every time a "bad" article gets through FAC because no one checks the basics, how many future articles will replicate the deficiencies? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on: User:Marskell/FA/FAQ. Marskell 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A good start. Are there other recurring questions/comments that we should add? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We might add Q. "Are cite templates required?" A. "No, but whatever format you choose, make sure it is used consistently and provides sufficient source information." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marskell (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see a reason to single out that size is only a guideline since almost everything on WP:WIAFA is only a guideline; the only policy requirements are 1c and 1d. 1a, 1b, and 1e are not even guidelines, all of 2 is guideline-based, as is 4 (size), so it should not be singled out as any less important than any other requirement. But then, I don't see a reason to mention that cite templates aren't required either, since that is mentioned elsewhere, and nowhere is it said that they are required. Some of this notion of an FA FAQ amounts to instruction creep; what works for an article on a highly-charged POV topic is different than a topic subject to little controversy/POV is different than a medical or math topic, and for every example given in an FAQ, there will be counterexamples. It seems that this whole tempest is an overreaction to two extremes: on the one hand, fact-bombing of math and physics articles by GAC reviewers who didn't necessarily have math/physics backgrounds, compared to resistance to citing articles by a handful of editors of articles that are generally in areas not subject to POV, highly-charged opinion, controversy, or edit warring. Be careful what you wish for when weakening Wiki's core without regard to the effect this may have on some of the more difficult, charged, topics. Not all of Wiki is math or medicine or literature or Pokemon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with you Sandy but think that if common sense isn't prevailing, then spelling out the way the guidelines should be interpreted is the answer. Controversy erupts in the strangest places - see the scrap at Talk:Dome of the Rock - an architecture article, but the subject of cross-faith controversy. I think the guidance is clearly applicable here as it stands - "likely to be challenged" is moderated by the context of the article, so the dome of the rock - important to 3 faiths - is likely to be challenged and so the differing viewpoints need to be accomodated and cited. 1e also ensures that controversial articles will need to be cited in order to achieve the stability criteria. --Joopercoopers 12:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there are many different opinions about where the common sense failures are occurring. I don't believe we should rewrite policies or instructions or invent FAQs that will have more exceptions than rules just to cover a handful of difficult situations. Bad case law. Consensus works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC) PS - by the way, I agree with you on Dome of the Rock; it provides an example of why we shouldn't do anything to weaken core policies for the sake of a vocal handful of editors who edit relatively uncontroversial topics. "Likely to be challenged" was worked out over a long period of discussion at ATT; it should stay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dropping in quickly to say I'm slightly confused. It may be debatable whether Marskell's current version of the FAQ is instruction creep, but I don't see anything in it - or in the general idea - that could be described as 'weakening core policies'. And 'likely to be challenged' isn't going anywhere; it's just being fleshed out. Opabinia regalis 17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that anything Marskell had written was weakening core policies, so now I'm confused along with you. My "be careful of what you wish for" is a response to the general drive against (depending on the situation) the use of well-cited reliable sources, since bowing to what works on Mash, Pokemon, math or literature articles (as examples) could lead to a weakening in interpretation of policies and guidelines on more problematic and charged topics. My issue with an FAQ has more to do with instruction creep; I think it would be hard to cover it adequately without getting into instruction creep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I saw the phrase 'weaken the core' twice in the context of the FAQ; sorry if I saw more of a connection than you intended. But I don't know where you're looking to see 'weakening' or a drive against using well-cited reliable sources. What I do see is people skimming the relevant policies and regurgitating the words without really having internalized them - the most common and visible case being people writing (and piping, till recently) 'verifiable sources'. Well, I suppose it's nice to make sure the sources exist, but that isn't quite the point. See more examples on the TfD I linked above. As for 'be careful what you wish for'... there's really no good reason that the number or density of inline citations on a math article should have any direct relationship to the number or density on, say, a controversial political figure, except inasmuch as they both meet the common sense test, so I don't quite see what the problem is. Opabinia regalis 02:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I'm confused about this often mentioned notion that the people at FAC, if there is such a group, are problematic. I've been hanging around there for the last six weeks, nursing articles through, helping out, commenting. I've not yet criticised an article for lack of sources—in fact, yesterday I was chiding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Verbascum thapsus for over-noting. The majority of reviewers do not seem over-obsessed with citation, as far as I can see. Sure, occasionally someone comes along and says "Object: not enough citations", but that won't usually damage an article's chances. Articles do pass with relatively few citations, so long as other things are in order. Most reviewers who comment at FAC seem reasonably wise. Thank goodness they bother. I've not yet seen an excellent article rejected for lack of citations or for any other criterion failure: if an article is FA quality, appraisers just seem to know. So, no extra guidelines, please. qp10qp 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it's perpetually in crisis it's never really in crisis. Such is Wiki. (The constant polling about reform at RfA is my personal favourite.) I actually think FAC and FAR have gotten better, as in the past they were closer to up-and-down votes (at least the old FARC was) and now people speak to the criteria.

But they are speaking to the criteria with fairly polarized viewpoints at times. There are certain things that haven't actually been written down that might be. Do I need footnotes? No, as a point of fact you don't, but remember A, B, C must be cited inline and there's no messing about with BLP. This sort of thing is all the FAQ is trying to do.

Does someone want to start a thread on the FAQ talk? I won't, because I may just be speaking to myself. Marskell 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Qp10qp, you noticed :-) Some work, some complain, work goes on, such is Wiki. Anecdotal claims, little evidence, mountain --> molehill. But such antics always get attention, prompting great cries for reform, when only a handful of editors have a problem, and most problems can be dealt with via consensus. The only issue I've noticed is some fairly rampant incivility which has been allowed to continue at FAR. The sort of comments allowed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Richard O'Connor should be stopped; they aren't helping the Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reasonably pleased with the evolution of FAR/C. It's much better than it used to be. Yes, Tim, there's a desperate need for greater codification of citation requirements. I'm convinced that this is possible. Tony 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article and Featured article criteria

I found that Good article and Featured article criteria is very similar. In result of this problem, the number of good and featured articles are very similar(1,959 vs. 1,310). I think we should change one of them. I think the number of good articles should be 2 or 3 times more than featured articles. Therefor Good article criteria can be facilitated.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This one of the main reasons why GA (in its present incarnation, anyhow) is such a silly process. Marskell 09:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is; GA is a good concept, but it sometimes takes an article longer to get reviewed than it would take on FAC. — Deckill er 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand why should we have two similar ranking. I propose to facilitate GA article criteria. For example we can recognize an article GA if it doesn't violate WP policies and guidelines. The main criteria are NPOV, Attribution, verifiability and accordance with manual of style. We can remove these criteria:broad coverage of the issue, stability and containing image. There are too many articles which have reached to this criteria. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This would be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. However, removing "broad in its coverage" would mean that a stub could theoretically be a GA... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Marskell that GA is a silly process; it's both too close to the FA in criteria, and way too unaccountable and loose in process. Better to get rid of GA altogether. Tony 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that the concept should be removed altogether; instead, the standard for GAs should be lowered slightly. Although the concept needs significant tweaking, it is important for us to have some sort of standard before FA that users can take pride in. It allows people to work on articles that would otherwise not have a chance to attain FA status, or they do not have the time to put in the extra required effort. — Deckill er 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that WPians are free to (indeed, encouraged to) work all articles up to a high level; why is this separate system of GA required to motivate them, when the verification and review processes are so shonky? Tony 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it's very difficult to get a relatively short article or a controversial article to FA status. — Deckill er 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Deckiller is correct. It's a good motivator—not every student can aim for an A+. I will add that the article assessment system, comprising [checks the damn dictionary again] six levels, needs GA, or something like it. Three levels of this six-level assessment system are barely used, making the larger article assessment program an extremely vague effort. If it were up to me, I'd let members of a hypothetical "GA WikiProject", versed in the criteria, assign GAs independently (with a review process available for disputes). –Outriggr § 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All is lost if there's no proper review process. It seems indulgent that a GA can be created and quashed by mere nomination. Let's not navel gaze on WP; the Internet is increasingly competitive, and without the highest standards, the project will fatally compromise its authority worldwide. Pity to endanger the reputation it has already achieved: that reputation needs to be constantly maintained and nurtured, and what appears to me to be a loosely organised process for rewarding articles without proper review can only dilute standards, and appear to the outside world to be amateurish. Tony 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should nominate GAs in the same way as we nominate FAs, just with lower standards? That way, more than one person chimes in? — Deckill er 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Does 1c matter?

I just read 1c to see if something can be done to tighten it up, to encourage the use of reliable sources on FAs. As far as I can tell, the wording seems tight enough, yet FAs continue to be promoted that are based on personal self-published websites, often obscured because publishers aren't identified on footnotes. When I object to no publishers, it's not a formatting objection; it's an issue of determining if reliable sources are used. What can we do to tighten this up: it's frustrating that this requirement is overlooked by so many reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that WP:IAR is now policy; if a key bit of information is found on a self published source, an exception should be made. However, there are excesses, but I have no issues with articles using the occasional self published source if it's reliable in relation to the subject at hand, or one of the only sources available. Sure, one can argue that the information "does not belong" anyway, but then we'd be looking at a violation of the comprehensiveness standard. It's a vicious cycle, so I think it's all about balancing everything in the best way possible. — Deckill er 19:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no good IAR rationale for not providing a publisher if you can find one. And I don't like the reasoning there DK—I can't find a good source so I can use a bad one? This doesn't make sense. Don't include the info.

And IAR is not "now" a policy—it's been so for a long long time. Marskell 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm specifically talking about reading too far into WP:RS for certain topics, not "if I can't find a good source I'll use a bad one". Although I agree that Sandy's examples are major (most topics should not have to have any self published sources, especially ones like Microsoft), an interview from the highly notable Famitsu gaming magazene in Japan translated and routed through several websites (with the translater's name available) is fine to be used as a source, in my opinion. So is a site with a full list of editorial staff, names, and whatnot about how characters were created, complete with interviews. Again, in relation to the subject at hand. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid that, several years down the line, someone is going to ruin one of my favorite works because it doesn't use New York Times and CNN as sources (Characters of Final Fantasy VIII) Also, IAR was turned into a policy in August ([2]), and that part of my comment was mostly a sarcastic comment geared towards my general dislike toward the concept. — Deckill er 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, strange that would be a policy when WP:RS is only a guideline; quite convoluted. I understand your concern; I'm trying to point out situations where better sources coulda/shoulda been used. Wondering how you view my concerns at the FAR of Heavy metal music—should we use a site like http://www.dinosaurrockguitar.com/ ? My concern is that reviewers rarely even question the quality of the sources; if someone questions a source on FF articles, and you explain why they're reliable, that usually works. My other concern is that it seems unless strong objects are lodged, articles are promoted; asking for publishers is reasonable and I shouldn't have to lodge an Object just to get some clarity on sources. Japan FAC is another current example; why do we use self-published websites for a topic that should be very well covered from high quality sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the now famous "always has been [policy]" from Jimbo's famous edit, I'm thinking of :). I've heard ignore the rules was the first rule developed on Wikipedia—well, that could be apocryphal. Makes for a better story. It is old, in any case.

I still don't like the logic underlaying what you're saying. What certain topics? Why should Characters of Final Fantasy VIII be held to a different standard than Microsoft? "The sources are 'the only sources available'" is NOT an argument—that much, at least, I don't buy. Marskell 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Different sources cover different materials; for example, sites like IGN are extremely well-known and are widely agreed by Wikipedia editors to be accurate, newspapers are good with current events, and so on. I'm not necessarily saying the sources for how the characters were designed used in Characters of Final Fantasy VIII are bad, either; they, in turn, provide sources, list their contact information and their names, and have a list of staff. The claims that use these source(s) are not controversial or surprising to those who know the subject matter, so it's not the same as using a blog for claim that microsoft was evil in the 1980s or something. In that respect, it's me being paranoid most likely. I can understand why you disagree that "the only sources available" is a poor argument, but the idea is that the game itself is notable (and even featured a cut and paste copy of part of the lead to clarify) and the material should take an out of universe perspective per WP:WAF (another guideline). Plus, another problem is that these games are from Japan, so a lot of valuable source material has to be translated into English, and only a few people have done so in regard to interviews and whatnot. In that respect, it's completely different than Microsoft. I'm trying my best to turn the articles of Final Fantasy into the best fiction coverage on Wikipedia, complying to policy as much as humanly possible, and a lot of progress has been made. Months ago, a lot of FF material was full or OR and unsourced information, so at the very least, it's significant progress. — Deckill er 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need tightening, but applying. I'm guessing Raul doesn't, or doesn't always, look at (a lack of) source information in refs; and I say that chagrined, having been (rightly) called out for exactly the same thing on a FAR close two days ago. It just needs to be got through to reviewers (don't know how, given how casual some supports are). www.justsomewebsite.com is not sufficient source information. Marskell 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And what a ridiculous policy this IAR thing is. Ignore all rules just because, in a single instance, one rule inhibits the improvement/maintenance of WP? At the very least, the appalling title needs to be changed. Tony 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He he. It should be in the singular, at least. The principle needs to exist—calling it policy is somewhat counter-intuitive. Marskell 21:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took 1c back to the wording that was there before ATT (about February), which emphasized verifiability to reliable sources; I think we lost something in the translation, which is my problem with ATT—attributable didn't say the same thing (IMO). I suggest we should see how ATT shakes out before changing WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as has been pointed out in the long debate over this, is that "verifiable against reliable sources" is not logically sound. We don't verify claims. We attribute claims to reliable sources. Marskell 09:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR has always been a de facto policy, even if not formally acknowledged as such (oh, the irony). It is often abused, but the nub of it is that writing the encyclopedia is the main thing, and pretty much everything else (but particularly the rules that we erect for ourselves around that aim) should take second place. It is about ignoring rules that inhibit the development of encyclopedic content, not ignoring rules that advance that aim. Which rules do the former and which do the latter is left as a exercise for the reader.

To my mind, "reliable sources" is an elastic concept. We certainly should require independently-published, peer-reviewed sources for topics where they exist; where they don't, we have to make do with what exists - sources that are considered reliable in one context may be unacceptably unreliable in another context. Specific attribution helps, of course - "X says A, but that is disputed by Y, who says B". -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1d

I edited 1d down to half the length. [Demented cackle, starts slashing madly at criteria.] Bishonen | talk 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

It was unneeded. Marskell 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was it unnecessary, Tim? The further detail is in the link, and it's in everyone's interests to make these criteria as succinct as possible. Do we really need the new Criterion 5 on talk pages? Tony 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Criterion 5 on talk pages was deleted almost as soon as it was added—not sure what version you're looking at? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was unneeded per "if this, why not that?". You take this canonical line from NPOV, why not add that one? Marskell 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, sorry, I mistakenly read Criterion 5 as current while checking previous versions. Tony 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just made a few more rationalisations of wording in the criteria. The only one I'm unsure of is my removal "they are" from "It contains images if they are appropriate to ...". Deckiller, I took out your recent italicisation of "significant"; it's a short statement, and every word is powerful in the criteria. If we start highlighting some words, it may be a slippery slope. When I first rewrote the criteria in late 2005 (they were in a big mess then), the first thing I did was to remove the untidy boldings and italicisations that were strewn throughout the criteria. Do you agree? Tony 21:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And I took 1c back to what it was before ATT was initiated; it was considerably clearer before IMO. Can you and DK tweak? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I completely forgot how severe the highlighting was. — Deckill er 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A strict reading of "It has images if appropriate to the subject" is "It has images if [it is/the article is] appropriate to the subject", which of course doesn't parse. :) –Outriggr § 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I'll revert it. Tony 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have returned "quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." ATT and V don't differ, so it's fine in either case. Marskell 07:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1c is redundant now (it mentions inline citations twice). Also, I (and others) have always disagreed that ATT and V don't differ or that there was any consensus on ATT, but we should wait a few days for ATT to be settled rather than trying to deal with this in multiple places. I'm going to leave it alone for now, and wait for ATT to shake out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the double reference? And to be more precise, ATT and V don't differ in this respect. Marskell 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right; one says "external citations" while the other is "inline citations". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Compelling, even brilliant"

This might have been done before, but I feel the need to bring it up anyway. Perhaps it's time to scratch the "even brilliant" part of the criterion. Two subjective phrases is excessive: "compelling" will more than suffice for the point we are trying to make. Moreover, "even brilliant" may suggest that we write our articles with flowery prose, which is a big no-no. I understand the word "brilliant" may bring back memories to the "brilliant prose" era (i.e. nostalgia), but it's even more subjective than "compelling". — Deckill er 06:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right—see #"Brilliant"?. I for one am OK with removing it, not because I am against brilliant prose (it is preferable to stupid prose :), but because the creativity implied in "brilliant" is out of place on an encyclopedia-wiki. –Outriggr § 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"well-written" is inherently subjective, and it is notoriously hard to define, as previous discussions will show (clear, concise, good grammar, good spelling, good syntax, appropriate vocabulary - it is perhaps easier to say what is wrong with bad writing than to say what is right about good writing, but there is no exhaustive checklist of objective points that can be ticked off). I see no problem in trying to explain what we mean by using two more subjective adjectives - "compelling, even brilliant". "Brilliant" certainly does not mean "flowery" prose, and I think examples of inappropriate floweriness would be shot down in short order: it just means very well written :)

We can't insist that all featured articles are "brilliant", of course - I am responsible for far too many pedestrian articles to expect that - but something is seriously awry if we think it is a problem when featured articles have "brilliant" writing, or if we think that being "brillant" is something towards which we not should not bother to aspire. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't see why brilliance is "out of place" in an encyclopedic register, or why the wiki process somehow militates against brilliance. Tony 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sure brilliance is not out of place, but I suspect that the wiki process (uncoordinated mass collaboration) rather tends towards the average, unfortunately. The "best" articles seem to be the ones that have a very small circle of authors (perhaps just one). The rather large amount of mediocre prose that we have (even where it is entirely workmanlike and serviceable) surely gives us more reason to value brilliance where it is found. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly all I meant by "out of place" [the subject was creativity, not brilliance] is that we can speak of "brilliant prose" much more easily in the context of fiction, essays, original research, and the like. Wikipedia policies thoroughly define what can be said in an article, and in doing so must affect, to some extent, how it can be said. Brilliant prose... when half of all adjectives are considered POV and removed?... when writing that differs from workmanlike is criticized as "flowery"?... — I think not. With the latitude available here, "compelling" just seems like a better word. (So maybe I have a different notion of "brilliant" than others—OK. Also, I'm not criticizing the policies that lead to the above situation—I'm just sayin'.) –Outriggr § 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Flowery"? That is not brilliant. English may be unique among the world's languages in its ability to be plain and elegant at the same time. (These two attributes, in my experience, go hand in hand.) Look, I don't care much about the brilliant word in 1a; what is more powerful is that statement at the top about "professional" writing and presentation. That word is, in fact, what I quote at nominators in the FAC room, not "brilliant" or "compelling". But do we care enough to change it? Won't affect the situation in which reviewers have to fall over backwards to get people to improve the standard of writing in nominations. Tony 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(irrelevant linguistic aside) Ummm, with all respect to my mother tongue, several languages seem significantly better at allowing plain and elegant wordings than does English. Attic Greek would probably rank #1 in my assessment, although I can't claim to know all the world's languages. Hebrew and Japanese definitely get kudos for brevity and simplicity, French and Tibetan for their precision, and German for its convenient compound nouns. Even Latin is probably better at being plain and elegant; the Odes of Horace rival their English counterparts, no? Perhaps you'll agree that it's really not the language that matters; it's the mastery of the speaker, the power to evoke image, thought and feeling within the listener. Willow 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I have with "brilliant" is that people deploy it literally and not suggestively. "The prose isn't brilliant, which is required." The criterion doesn't actually require brilliant prose. I agree "professional" is the best choice. Marskell 11:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in Featured Lists

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Fair Use images about the permitted level of usage of Fair Use images in Featured Lists. Your input would be welcomed. Tompw (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Image pixels in thumbnails

I was surprised to see this on ANI; I had never heard of this WP:IUP rule -- "avoid specifying sizes in thumbnails". As I posted in that thread, FAs appear not to follow this rule much, if at all. I am not really active over here, though I have participated a little bit in the past when I had a candidate article here. However, I'm working on some articles I would eventually like to bring here and would like to know if the FA reviewers feel this is something that is relevant to FAs. Mike Christie (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use and image issues are frustrating; if someone would explain them in English, I'd check. I just removed the pixel sizes from Tourette syndrome, but it's still Greek to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)